The big problem is that data loss is an externality that it is not being priced by the market. So let's have government put a price on it. Pick a number. Five dollars? Ten dollars? Fifty cents? For every person's personal information the company loses, they pay a fine of the mandated amount. Make it treble for social security numbers. Problem solved. Yahoo pays out a cool $250 million, even at 50 cents a pop.

The reason that these scams are so successful is that there is real need for professional SEO services. But there's simply no way to separate the wheat from the chaffe. (Or is it that there is no wheat? I can't always tell). My family's small business is a perfect example. We sell beads and jewelry. Nobody actively working at the store is a techie (although they do things with pliers and tweezers that would make your head spin). We know that our website is barely serviceable from an SEO standpoint and frankly, we could probably use some professional help.

As the "designated techie" in the family (which I am decidedly not), the family forwards me an SEO solicitation at least once a week. Of course, I patiently (or not so patiently) explain each time that it's a scam. But the fact remains that the family knows we need this type of service at some level. So the temptation to believe that there's someone out there that actually understands this stuff better than us (which shouldn't be hard) is so very great. But it's tough when the entire industry appears to be a scam. Sad, really.

A decade or so ago, I would have recommended that The Guardian use meta-moderation. It seemed like such a panacea to have people of good will separate the wheat from the chafe. But meta-moderation (rather like democracy, now that I think about it) is only as good as the intellectual honesty of the people involved. Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to get sold pretty cheap. Instead, people are more interested in moderating to drive the outcome, rather than promote healthy debate. It's a little sad, actually, but I think the trend is going to have to be paid, professional moderators, ideally with some level of independence from the underlying news publication -- perhaps under the Ombudsman or OpEd model.

Totally agree with the parent. But I think there's something that all you techies need to understand (and I don't say that as a slam, just that there is a wide divide here). Lawyers look at this case and see a long, rich tradition of people taking a series of arguably lawful steps to accomplish an unlawful goal. Judges have very little patience for this type of obfuscation; instead, the judge in a case like this is going to ask a couple of fundamental questions:

1) Who owns the intellectual property at issue here?

2) Is the allegedly infringing party doing something that feels like an invasion of the owner's intellectual property?

If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then it just becomes a matter of examining affirmative defense (such as Fair Use) and then developing a legal justification for why the infringing activity should be stopped.

This case seems like a slam dunk to me. Blizzard invested its capital to create a product. Blizzard has the right to profit from that investment. I have little sympathy for parties suggesting that because what they are doing isn't technically "copying" that they aren't trying to recreate the look & feel & enjoyment provided by the product. Listen, I despise the DCMA as much as the next lawyer, but does anyone really think Blizzard isn't entitled to stop people free-loading?

The one place where/.'s moderation system completely fails in on gender equity issues. Even interesting posts chock full of citations pointing out gender-related issues are routinely down-voted. The quality of the content does not seem to matter. It's pretty depressing to see how meaningful debate and idea sharing just gets completely squelched. Of course, the deep irony is that the tech industry is one of the places where gender issues are front and center. But read/., and you'd think there's a unity of thinking, which of course, is simply untrue.

Because the "science" is shaky as hell. The gender disparity in CS and engineering is both enormous and resilient to attempts to dispel it, yet we're supposed to believe these "internalized gender stereotypes" are the main cause despite those same stereotypes somehow not affecting chemistry or advertising and only barely affecting mathematics?

I'm sorry, but why do you say the science is shaky or that it barely affects mathematics? Google "stereotype threat mathematics" and there are oodles of credible scientific studies documenting the effect. From one of the articles, such as this one from NYU's Department of Psychology (http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2008/1/29/Stereotype_Threat_Affects_Women_in_Highlevel_Math_Courses_Aronson_Study_Finds):

"Considerable research over the past decade has shown that women's performances on math tests are compromised by stereotypes. In over 200 published experiments, females as young as first graders and as old as 22 have been found to perform worse on math tests whenever the testing environment cues them to think about their gender, a phenomenon named "stereotype threat" by the psychologists Claude Steele and Aronson in the mid 1990s. (Emphasis mine.)

Where's the shaky research here? The studies showing that women behave worse on difficult math tests when they are reminded they are women prior to taking the test is both reproducible and fascinating.

And your choice to cite mathematics as a counter-example is particularly interesting, given that 27% of math PhDs in 2012 (drawn from a pool of U.S. Citizens) were women. (http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/2013Survey-NewDoctorates-Report.pdf). If we look at faculty positions, the data are show that women are incredibly underrepresented in professorships (the numbers are equally striking across most STEM fields (http://www.human.cornell.edu/hd/ciws/upload/SexDifferencesMathIntensiveFields.pdf):

In the top 100 U.S. universities, only 9% to 16% of tenure-track positions in math intensive fields are occupied by women (Nelson & Brammer,2010). Among full professors, women number around or fewerthan 10%: computer science, 10.3%; chemistry, 9.7%; economics, 8.7%; chemical engineering, 7.3%; mathematics, 7.1%; civil engineering, 7.1%; electrical engineering, 5.7%; physics, 6.1%;and mechanical engineering, 4.4%. In contrast, women are much better represented in the rest of the sciences and humanities, often making up one third or more of professorial posts.

One of the things that bothers me about the responses I see here are that posters never grapple with the actual data. You cannot claim to be a nerd if your response to empirical studies showing that gender cues drive significant differences in testing is to simply ignore the data. I used to think like you, and then I started reading the research. When you do that, you discover that the human brain is amazing at internalizing external social cues. If scientists ignored inconvenient results, we'd never have discovered that the universe is actually accelerating. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe)

So I know this is a troll posting, but I'm going to respond anyway. There is actually lots of hard science behind this. For a start, read Claude Steele's "Whistling Vivaldi." While I agree that some of his conclusions are more of the social science variety, the tests that he (and others) developed are fascinating and clearly suggest that our current understanding of social cues and their impact on the human brain is imperfect at best.

Slashdot's commentaries on gender issues in tech read more like an Onion parody than reasoned discussion. The investment of new dollars in STEM education for poor girls is a wonderful thing. (Frankly, the investment of *any* dollars into education for low income kids is marvelous). The desire among so many here is to just analogize from your own experience and ask "I did it, so why can't X"? It's hard to describe the number of problems with that line of reasoning. But here are a couple of thoughts that maybe can elevate the discussion.

First, there is massive confirmation bias going on. The fact that the system selects people that look like you (and, frankly me) to be successful is not evidence that the system is fair for everyone. Every time some successful person says, "well, I scored well on X test,and look at how successful I am," I just want to shake them until they realize that correlation (i.e.,only people scoring well on X test get into Y job) does NOT imply causation (I am successful at Y job, therefore X test is important.) Because if the entire pool of people at Y job is comprised of good test takers, then only good test takers will become successful.

Second, the fact that you yourself (or someone you know) achieved success against overwhelming odds (whether it be poverty, lack of opportunity, gender, race, whatever) does not mean that there are no barriers to entry into STEM. How many disadvantaged people need to be turned away for every amazing overachiever before we decide that maybe the system is broken?

Third, how can everyone on a site that claims to be nerds completely ignore the scientific evidence of how internalized gender stereotypes affect the decision of women to go into STEM? Why is it that women do worse on standardized tests when you remind them of their gender? There are really fascinating issues going on here that get completely ignored in the Slashdot group think. Frankly, I can't tell if it's just the trolls winning, or if Slashdot's blind spot really is a metaphor for what goes on in tech generally.

Yo Nerds -- you really need to at least glance at the decision before you all start condemning/praising the decision. In reality, this case is a big nothing-burger and does nothing to promote civil rights in America. The entire "meat" of the decision is in this paragraph:

The Magistrate Judge found that detention for the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion, see App. 100, and the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings. The Court of Appeals, however, did not review that determination. The question whether reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez beyond completion of the traffic infraction investigation, therefore, remains open for Eighth Circuit consideration on remand. [citations omitted]

What does this mean? It means that the officer was honest/stupid enough to say during the original trial that he had no "individualized suspicion" about this particular vehicle or this particular defendant. All the cop had to do was "articulate" an "individualized suspicion" about why he wanted to search the car with a drug-sniffing dog, and the whole case would have turned out differently. As it is, the case just gets remanded back to the lower court to look into the issue some more. Basically, the Supreme Court is inviting the 8th Circuit to come back with a finding that the cop probably had a reason to suspect drugs, and therefore everything was fine. This is anything but a sweeping victory for civil rights.

Seriously, how many people reading this would be interested in donating $100 each to a new Political Action Committee dedicated to mercilessly mocking candidates of both parties that revel in their technological ignorance? I am a liberal Democrat, but I just cannot fathom voting for a candidate -- of either party -- so out of touch with the world today that they eschew email -- never mind taking pride in such a shocking level of ignorance.

Are there politically-minded Millennials living in mom and dad's basement interested in taking up the challenge? I've got your first donation right here.

Like many of you out there, I never personally experienced these issues (being a white male). And I actually like looking at pretty girls. But at what cost? Folks should recognize that there's a vast literature out there about the impacts of both conscious and unconscious bias in testing, hiring and performance of minorities and women in STEM fields. Things like Booth Babes drive people away. For those of you interested, it is illuminating to read about the weird ways in which the human brain internalizes various societal cues about how women and minorities fit into STEM. Anyone who wants to comment on this topic seriously should at least read through this research:

* Book - "Whistling Vivaldi," written by Claude Steele . Professor Steele isn't the best writer in the world, but the experiments he describes are just fascinating. I challenge anyone to look at his results and not refine their views on these issue. Nice mix of pop-psychology and scientific research. http://www.amazon.com/Whistlin...

* Planet Money Podcast - "When Women Stopped Coding", very much pop-psychology, but thoroughly entertaining and I certainly found some basic truth in their theory. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

Reading this research (even at the cursory level pop-science perspective) certainly got me thinking about women (and minorities) in STEM. Personally, it turned me from a skeptic of the type of program Intel is purposing into.... well, I'm not entirely sure. Read the research and I think you'll see what I mean.

Apologies for bringing actual science to what I'm sure will turn into a flame war..... (Complete disclosure: I posed something similar a few weeks ago, but it's such interesting stuff, I posted it again!)

Am I the only wondering if Jeff Bezos was a science fiction fan? Robert Heinlein basically predicted an Amazon-like behemoth that did everything for everyone, called General Services. Granted, the book portrays them as less "product" and more "service," but the idea is very similar!

General Services got its start as a dog walking company, and grew from there. (Books anyone?) As a result of its humble beginnings, General Service's 's tag line is "We Also Walk Dogs." Really awesome read. I came across it in a compilation called "The Green Hills of Earth," which is chock full of other really nice little stories. And for those of you who have only read Heinlein's novels, I found the short stories a really refreshing read.

I recently bought an i3 and have been really frustrated by the competing fast charger standards. How will GM help customers handle the three fast-charger standards (Combo/SAE, Chademo, Tesla)?

One of the reasons I did not seriously consider the Volt was that it didn't have fast-charge capability. Do you see fast charging as a core part of future GM electric vehicles, or do you think backup gas engines are a long-term solution?

So I'm a white male that's actually done a little reading on the issue of women and STEM. Folks should recognize that there's a vast literature out there about the impacts of both conscious and unconscious bias in testing, hiring and performance of minorities and women in STEM fields. Like many of you out there, I never personally experienced these issues (being a white male), and it was illuminating for me to read about the weird ways in which the human brain internalizes various societal cues about how women and minorities fit into STEM. Anyone who wants to comment on this topic seriously should at least read through this research:

* Book - "Whistling Vivaldi," written by Claude Steele . Professor Steele isn't the best writer in the world, but the experiments he describes are just fascinating. I challenge anyone to look at his results and not refine their views on these issue. Nice mix of pop-psychology and scientific research. http://www.amazon.com/Whistlin...

* Planet Money Podcast - "When Women Stopped Coding", very much pop-psychology, but thoroughly entertaining and I certainly found some basic truth in their theory. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

Reading this research (even at the cursory level pop-science perspective) certainly got me thinking about women (and minorities) in STEM. Personally, it turned me from a skeptic of the type of program Intel is purposing into.... well, I'm not entirely sure. Read the research and I think you'll see what I mean.